[Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm: BIT(DRM_ROTATE_?) -> DRM_ROTATE_?

[Sean Paul]

On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 2:44 AM, Joonas Lahtinen
<joonas.lahtinen at linux.intel.com> wrote:
> On ti, 2016-07-26 at 10:49 -0400, Sean Paul wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 3:00 AM, Joonas Lahtinen
>> <joonas.lahtinen at linux.intel.com> wrote:
>> > diff --git a/include/drm/drm_crtc.h b/include/drm/drm_crtc.h
>> > index 3edeaf8..57bbc61 100644
>> > --- a/include/drm/drm_crtc.h
>> > +++ b/include/drm/drm_crtc.h
>> > @@ -84,13 +84,13 @@ static inline uint64_t I642U64(int64_t val)
>> >   * DRM_REFLECT_Y reflects the image along the specified axis prior to rotation
>> >   */
>> >  #define DRM_ROTATE_MASK 0x0f
>> > -#define DRM_ROTATE_0   0
>> > -#define DRM_ROTATE_90  1
>> > -#define DRM_ROTATE_180 2
>> > -#define DRM_ROTATE_270 3
>> > +#define DRM_ROTATE_0   BIT(0)
>> > +#define DRM_ROTATE_90  BIT(1)
>> > +#define DRM_ROTATE_180 BIT(2)
>> > +#define DRM_ROTATE_270 BIT(3)
>> >  #define DRM_REFLECT_MASK (~DRM_ROTATE_MASK)
>> It's probably a good time to give these masks a little love. Could we
>> just generate them (both ROTATE and REFLECT) from the ROTATE and
>> REFLECT values now?
>
> I was consider it too, so I think it would be an OK change. Fine with
> the patch otherwise? I can send a revised version with that changed.
>

Yeah, everything else looks good to me. Please resend.

Sean

> Regards, Joonas
>
>>
>> Sean
>>
>> >
>> > -#define DRM_REFLECT_X  4
>> > -#define DRM_REFLECT_Y  5
>> > +#define DRM_REFLECT_X  BIT(4)
>> > +#define DRM_REFLECT_Y  BIT(5)
>> >
>> >  enum drm_connector_force {
>> >         DRM_FORCE_UNSPECIFIED,
>> > --
>> > 2.5.5
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > dri-devel mailing list
>> > dri-devel at lists.freedesktop.org
>> > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
> --
> Joonas Lahtinen
> Open Source Technology Center
> Intel Corporation